Dataset Information

[Current treatment standard for patella fractures in Germany].

ABSTRACT:

Background

The treatment of patella fractures is technically demanding. Although the radiological results are mostly satisfactory, this often does not correspond to the subjective assessment of the patients. The classical treatment with tension band wiring with K‑wires has several complications. Fixed-angle plate osteosynthesis seems to be biomechanically advantageous.

Objective

Who is treating patella fractures in Germany? What is the current standard of treatment? Have modern forms of osteosynthesis become established? What are the most important complications?

Material and methods

The members of the German Society for Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery and the German Knee Society were asked to participate in an online survey.

Results

A total of 511 completed questionnaires were evaluated. Most of the respondents are specialized in trauma surgery (51.5%), have many years of professional experience and work in trauma centers. Of the surgeons 50% treat ≤5 patella fractures annually. In almost 40% of the cases preoperative imaging is supplemented by computed tomography. The classical tension band wiring with K‑wires is still the preferred form of osteosynthesis for all types of fractures (transverse fractures 52%, comminuted fractures 40%). In the case of comminuted fractures 30% of the surgeons choose fixed-angle plate osteosynthesis. If the inferior pole is involved a McLaughlin cerclage is used for additional protection in 60% of the cases.

Discussion

The standard of care for patella fractures in Germany largely corresponds to the updated S2e guidelines. Tension band wiring is still the treatment of choice. Further (long-term) clinical studies are needed to verify the advantages of fixed-angle plates.

SUBMITTER: Fehske K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8460507 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundExtramedullary and intramedullary implants have improved in recent years, although consensus is lacking concerning the definition and classification of unstable intertrochanteric fractures, with uncertainties regarding treatment.Questions/purposesWe conducted a national survey of practicing chairpersons of German institutions to determine current perspectives and perceptions of practice in the diagnosis, management, and surgical treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures.MethodsBetween January and February 2010, we emailed 575 German chairpersons of trauma and/or orthopaedic departments, asking them to complete a 26-question web-based survey regarding three broad domains: fracture classification and instability criteria, implants and surgical treatment algorithms, and timing of operations. Response rate was 42%.ResultsThere was a clear preference for use of the AO/OTA fracture classification with geographic variations. Absence of medial support was considered the main criterion for fracture instability (84%), whereas a broken lateral wall and detached greater trochanter were considered by 4% and 5% of the respondents, respectively, to determine instability. Two percent routinely fixed unstable intertrochanteric fractures with extramedullary devices. Ninety-eight percent of German hospitals reportedly perform surgery within 24 hours after admission. Time to surgery was dependent on hospital level, with more direct surgeries in Level I hospitals.ConclusionsDespite varying opinions in the literature in recent years, we found some instability criteria (lateral wall breach, a detached greater trochanter) played a minor role in defining an unstable intertrochanteric fracture pattern. Despite recent meta-analyses suggesting clinical equivalence of intra- and extramedullary implants, few respondents routinely treat unstable intertrochanteric fractures with extramedullary plates. Additional studies are required to specify the influence of fracture characteristics on complication rate and function and to establish a classification system with clear treatment recommendations for unstable intertrochanteric fractures.

Project description:BackgroundThe cable pin system is an effective device for fixation of transverse patella fractures. However, whether this device provides superior results using a minimally invasive technique instead of conventional open surgery using the K wire tension band method is unclear.Questions/purposesWe asked whether a minimally invasive technique would be associated with (1) increased operative time; (2) reduced postoperative pain; (3) faster recovery of ROM; (4) higher knee scores; and (5) reduced complications.MethodsForty patients with displaced transverse fractures of the patella participated in this prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Twenty of these patients underwent a minimally invasive technique and the others had conventional open surgery using K wires. Some data for six of the 20 patients who underwent the minimally invasive technique were published in an earlier prospective, observational trial. At postoperative intervals of 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, pain was measured by VAS scores, active flexion and extension of the knee were measured in degrees by goniometry, and knee function was evaluated using the Böstman clinical grading scale.ResultsOperative time was longer in the minimally invasive surgery group (54.3 ± 9.8 minutes versus 48.5 ± 6.1 minutes). Pain scores were better (lower) in the minimally invasive surgery group at 1 and 3 months but not at 6 months. Early flexion, ultimate flexion, and knee scores from 3 to 24 months, likewise, were better in the minimally invasive surgery group. Complications mostly related to symptomatic hardware were less common in the minimally invasive surgery group.ConclusionsThe minimally invasive technique is superior to conventional open surgery using K wires in terms of less early postoperative pain, better mobility angles of the injured knee, higher functional score of the injured knee, and decreased incidence of complications.Level of evidenceLevel I, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Project description:BackgroundOpen reduction internal fixation (ORIF) has long been the conventional procedure for managing displaced patella fracture. This surgical approach has certain drawbacks, which might affect clinical outcomes and patient prognosis. Minimally invasive percutaneous fixation (MIPF) was proposed to overcome these disadvantages. Few in-depth investigations have been performed to determine the superiority of MIPF over ORIF. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacies of MIPF and ORIF for patella fractures.MethodsThe PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched for relevant studies from November 26 to December 17, 2020. Non-English publications and pediatric orthopedic articles were excluded. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager, version 5.4, with mean differences (MDs), standardized mean differences (SMDs), odds ratios (ORs), and respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) calculated using a random effects model. The primary outcomes were the pain score, knee range of motion, and joint functionality. The secondary outcomes were the surgical time, complications, and implant removal rate.ResultsSix articles with a total of 304 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis revealed that patients with MIPF had a significantly reduced pain score (MD = - 1.30, 95% CI = - 1.77 to -0.82; p < 0.00001) and increased knee extension angles (MD = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.18 to 1.25; p = 0.009) at 3-month follow-up. Furthermore, knee flexion angles (MD = 8.96, 95% CI = 5.81 to 12.1; p < 0.00001) and joint functionality (SMD = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.21 to 0.86; p = 0.001) had statistically improved at 2 years. However, no difference was observed between MIPF and ORIF with regard to the surgical time. The risk of complications (OR = 0.10, 95% CI = 0.05 to 0.18; p < 0.00001) and implant removal rate (OR = 0.20, 95% CI = 0.07 to 0.57; p = 0.003) were significantly lower with MIPF than with ORIF.ConclusionsMIPF is more favorable than ORIF in terms of the pain score, knee range of motion, joint functionality, complications, and implant removal rate. Thus, it can be adopted as an alternative to ORIF.